Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.

The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.

So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?

Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.

The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.

So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?

"I guess it would just be a guy who, you know, grabs bananas and runs. Or a banana that grabs things. I don't know. Why would a banana grab another banana? I mean those are the kind of questions I don't want to answer."

Some days I support Liberal Social Democracy, other days I support De-centralized Syndicalist Direct Democracy.

Favorite RvB quote.Director: Dear Chairman,

I don't give a damn about your committee and its opinions of my work! Have you forgotten sir, we were at war? A fight with an alien race for the very survival of our species. I feel I must remind you that it is an undeniable, and may I say a fundamental quality of man, that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable.

Seems sort of obvious really, it's all about comparative advantage. On a vaguely related note.

Seskany wrote:Feminism (At least, the proper kind) is about equal rights for the sexes. So, no. "Feminists," however, are just bigots with different prejudices then the mainstream terrible people. Note my clever use of quotation marks, there. Fortunately, quotation-mark-feminists are few, and far between. Unless you're on the internet, I mean.

Feminism goes about trying to get gender equality by approaching it from the female perspective. This, when all is said and done, is not surprising when one remembers that feminism began as a ideology that was about getting women equal rights. Now that has largely been achieved (where feminism began) feminism has broadened its scope to deal with all inequality wherever it sees it. Which is the problem, there's inequality that will get left behind and will be ignored by feminism. Not because feminists want to ignore it but because they don't see it. However, maybe if feminism was more successful with what it does see then, perhaps, in an incredibly cynical attempt to stay relevant it will be able to see more... just as it did last time it needed to update.

That bit about not seeing has been something that NSG has been either unable or unwilling to grasp. In the eyes of many on here feminism can do no wrong and this extends to it having no flaws. In fact on similar thread saw me quite deliberately point out an instance of selective quoting on my part in the post where that happened and then spend ages dealing with the feminist arm in that thread that accused me of selective quoting. This wouldn't have been a problem if they had just read and understand my post with the mentioning of selective quoting. It was really quite dense on their part. (I selectively quoted for humour, why else?)

the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

This is my go-to definition of feminism. It's from a highly respectable source and is only criticised because I don't bother with other definitions (for the most part I disagree with those definitions and they are as respectable in origin). What we see here is that feminists agree with equal rights. More than that, really, they want equal rights. The important bit to note is that they advocate women's rights. What does this mean? Well, quite simply, feminists advocate women's rights to achieve gender equality. Not hard at all to understand, right? Experience here says otherwise, that said this is a new way of explaining this so maybe this time.\

Feminism complains about women not being paid as much. Often, they look at job locations not jobs. If most women are on the checkouts they'll have lower average pays because stacking shelves pays more, for example. This is really more a statistical thing that I wanted to point out. In fact, most people would make this error and I probably only identify it because I've had cause to sit down and think about it some more. This paragraph really exists to show you how easily one can create a passage that is critical of feminism. The bolded sentence exists to elevate me over the rest as I bother to point out that this is something feminists do but it is not a flaw of feminism. (In other words, bias is really easy to create.)

People do complain about the under-acheivement of boys in relation to girls in schools. Boys and English is practically the same thing as Girls and Maths. I'm not sure which is better known, given that I've seen a Simpsons episode working with the latter I am inclined to say in the US, at least, Girls and Maths is. However, that's also the view that's more beneficial to my point (fair, if not balanced). Certainly, having to think about which is better known tells me that they are, at least, equally well known things. That sounds good, right? Well, not really. The simple fact is that boys do worse in English when compared to girls than girls do in maths when compared to boys. This, in an equal society, should mean that that as a problem should be better known. In fact, education is both a glaring success and a glaring failure for feminism as a result of this.

All in all, society is better off for having feminism than it would be for not having it. The challenge today is making sure that feminism continues to be beneficial. The more examples of sexist feminists there are out there is quite possibly for the best. Feminism will be forced to rename itself and "feminism" will go the way of "masculism". The new "equalists" as I dub them will have a clean slate and that should mean that they can do more for gender equality.

The Matriarchy... like the Patriarchy or the Deep State but more conspirational, more bitter, more pervasive and, somehow, even more inclined to circular proofs.

Samuraikoku wrote:I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.

-shrugs-Well there is the biological fact that we live slightly shorter lives.

Compared to.....?

Some days I support Liberal Social Democracy, other days I support De-centralized Syndicalist Direct Democracy.

Favorite RvB quote.Director: Dear Chairman,

I don't give a damn about your committee and its opinions of my work! Have you forgotten sir, we were at war? A fight with an alien race for the very survival of our species. I feel I must remind you that it is an undeniable, and may I say a fundamental quality of man, that when faced with extinction, every alternative is preferable.

Samuraikoku wrote:I don't consider myself better or worse off than anybody. This kind of things aren't a zero sum game.

-shrugs-Well there is the biological fact that we live slightly shorter lives.

But compared to fifty years ago we live longer lives. Men, as current thinking goes, only ever lived longer than women because so many more used to die in childbirth. Now that modern medicinal practice has greatly reduced this...

The Matriarchy... like the Patriarchy or the Deep State but more conspirational, more bitter, more pervasive and, somehow, even more inclined to circular proofs.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues

Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.

Not Safe For Work wrote:Strange stuff? Sure. There's nothing interesting about male-obsolescence paranoia.

This isn't standard, run-of-the-mill MRA trolling. This is someone actually advocating the phasing out of males as a good thing. This guy is also asserting that gay men are even worse than straight men. It's some interesting shit.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Let us briefly contend that there is a pro-women bias in discussion of social issues

Begging the question. Modern culture is virulently anti-woman in that most women want a stable marriage and children, something that feminism denies them. Ostroeuropa is anti-woman because he is a radical feminist.

Men in the U.S. are, on average, worse-off economically than those a generation or two ago because the increase in the labour supply, due to women entering the workforce en masse, has pushed down the average wage rate for male workers. However, women aren't to blame here as much as trickle down economics and outsourcing are to blame.

Not Safe For Work wrote:Strange stuff? Sure. There's nothing interesting about male-obsolescence paranoia.

This isn't standard, run-of-the-mill MRA trolling. This is someone actually advocating the phasing out of males as a good thing. This guy is also asserting that gay men are even worse than straight men. It's some interesting shit.

No, it's still not really interesting. Just like people talking about how Hitler was right and we really should have killed all the Jews is not interesting. The fact that there is a greater than zero chance of this happening is outweighed by the idea that one would have to use scientific notation to understand just how small that non-zero chance would be.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "worse off." It's not like they've been viciously oppressed or downgraded, nor do "men of the house" get quite the same wide-spread ass-kissing as they did in the 50's. You might consider things like jobs, pay, expectations, but this isn't exactly unique to their gender. Each sex has it's own struggles in various areas of society, and have both been hit by a few of the same.So are they worse off? Only about as worse off as everyone is in this day and age. And no, the idea of men being obsolete is absolutely ridiculous.

Supreme Cult-Leader Gio - Now in minty fresh! TG me w/ RP questions!ℳadhouse • Player Bio/Useful Links • Art • Blog • Personification Life • I wear teal,blue& pink for Swith“But it is the mark of all movements, however well-intentioned, that their pioneers tend, by much lashing of themselves into excitement, to lose sight of the obvious.”

Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.

The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.

So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?

Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.

I am worse off if I can't slap my secretary's ass like I could in the pre 70's era.

"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)Barack Obama

Gauntleted Fist wrote:No, it's still not really interesting. Just like people talking about how Hitler was right and we really should have killed all the Jews is not interesting. The fact that there is a greater than zero chance of this happening is outweighed by the idea that one would have to use scientific notation to understand just how small that non-zero chance would be.

Interesting discussion there. The article itself asserts that the idea that men are worse off now than they used to be is largely a myth. Any circumstances where they actually are worse off are explained solely by greater competition with women.

The comments section is even more interesting. There is a very heated discussion there about whether or not men are obsolete.

So what do you think? Are men really worse off compared to the 50's or is this a myth? On a related note, will improvements in reproductive technology make men obsolete, or is this a paranoid fantasy?

Interesting and strange stuff one can find on the internet.

I am worse off if I can't slap my secretary's ass like I could in the pre 70's era.

You still are not a lesbian.

The only thing that keeps me from getting a sex change is that I already look pretty.

Forsher wrote:Feminism complains about women not being paid as much. Often, they look at job locations not jobs. If most women are on the checkouts they'll have lower average pays because stacking shelves pays more, for example. This is really more a statistical thing that I wanted to point out. In fact, most people would make this error and I probably only identify it because I've had cause to sit down and think about it some more. This paragraph really exists to show you how easily one can create a passage that is critical of feminism. The bolded sentence exists to elevate me over the rest as I bother to point out that this is something feminists do but it is not a flaw of feminism. (In other words, bias is really easy to create.)

But it was better when women stayed in the home, certain people weren't allowed on golf courses, and the US and USSR were playing a game of Nuclear chicken!

Caninope wrote:The idea of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh reuniting is about as logical as the idea that Barack Obama will kill his wife, marry Ahmadinejad in a ceremony officiated by Mitt Romney during the 7th Inning Stretch of the Yankees-Red Sox game, and then the happy couple will then go challenge President Xi for the position of General Secretary of the CCP in a gladiatorial fight to the death involving roaches, slingshots, and hard candies.